Haptic interfaces
in [Embedded]
|
From: JosephKK on 2 Mar 2010 01:25 On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:44:29 -0700, D Yuniskis <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com> wrote: >Hi, > >What makes a haptic interface "good"? bad? *Exceptional*? > >What would you nominate as the "best" haptic interface? > >What (electronic) device would you nominate as having the >best haptic interface? > >And, of course, "why", in each case. > >Thanks! >--don In a nutshell, it is good to the extent that it maps to conventional experience and sensation in a clear way. It is bad to the extent that it is counterintuitive. Exceptional would have to mimic natural sensation in a major way while having a nearly trivial learning curve. Several examples of good seem to be embodied in the Nintendo Wii. But all this is just my opinion. If you search hard you may be able to find research that manages to quantify this to some extent.
From: JosephKK on 2 Mar 2010 01:32 On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 10:19:55 -0800, Tim Wescott <tim(a)seemywebsite.now> wrote: >Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote: >> Op Mon, 01 Mar 2010 04:44:29 +0100 schreef D Yuniskis >> <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com>: >>> What makes a haptic interface "good"? >> >> Dunno. >> >>> bad? >> >> When it is painful. ;) > >Actually, if it were on the primary controls of a plane, something that >gets painful when there's a good chance of damaging your life-preserving >airframe 10000 feet above the ground may not be a bad thing. >Particularly if there's enough pain to make you think, but not enough to >force you to fly into Mt. St. Helens on a particularly bad day. > >(This is from a criticism of flight control systems, by the way -- at >least at the time it was made several years ago, Boeing automatic flight >controls were criticized for letting you bend the airplane, while Airbus >flight controls were criticized for not letting you keep the plane from >flying into terrain. I don't know if things have changed since then.) Most of the early Airbus avionics problems have been sorted out. The Boeing issues did not appear in my news sources that i noticed, perhaps it happened when i had gaps in access to those sources.
From: JosephKK on 2 Mar 2010 01:47 On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:46:15 -0700, D Yuniskis <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com> wrote: >Hi Jim, > >Jim Stewart wrote: >>> I still see problems. E.g., you (the pilot?) perceive something >>> wrong is happening with your aircraft. You go to make a corrective >>> action but encounter something painful. Not "YOWCH!" but just >>> something mildly uncomfortable -- enough to get you to stop >>> doing what you *wanted* to do (i.e., what you *know* is "right"). >>> Perhaps you pull your hands off the yoke, etc. >> >> Google "stick shaker". >> >> Pilots are trained to recognize an approaching stall >> by buffet of the control surfaces and then the whole >> airframe. >> >> Works well in small aircraft, not so much in large jets. >> So to give a pilot a pre-learned cue of an approaching >> stall, a device shakes the control horn to simulate >> the warning cue of a small aircraft. > >Yes, but: >1) I assume a shaking stick isn't *painful* (perhaps annoying?) >2) I imagine a pilot encounters that sort of thing *often* > in their career. > >Contrast this with a collision avoidance system (mistakenly) >giving you a mild shock to discourage you from "banking hard >to port" when, in fact, that is *exactly* what you need to >do in this particular (once in a career) situation. > >E.g., I would imagine the shaking stick is familiar enough >to the pilot that he would *ignore* it if he saw an aircraft >in his flight path. But, would he ignore a "mild shock" >as he tried to turn away? Or, would it cause him to >hesitate? > >I.e., would you have to introduce this "pain" (discomfort) >in enough situations that the pilot could set a low threshold >to overcome it? (including the "surprise" associated with it) > >Dunno. I've just heard horror stories of avionics misbehaving >(I wonder if Toyota makes any? :> ) and wonder how quickly >a pilot could overcome his hesitation caused by that >"unexpected" pain/discomfort? On the other hand i have read several times of flight control systems behaving exactly as designed leading to crashes. Study early airbus 300 and 310 crashes for examples.
From: JosephKK on 2 Mar 2010 02:10 On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:50:34 -0700, D Yuniskis <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com> wrote: >Hi Boudewijn, > >Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote: >> Op Mon, 01 Mar 2010 04:44:29 +0100 schreef D Yuniskis >> <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com>: >>> What makes a haptic interface "good"? >> >> Dunno. >> >>> bad? >> >> When it is painful. ;) > >Wow, I never considered that possibility. :-/ > <snip> > >Contrast this with something like a "child proof" pill bottle... >the size of the cap varies and, as such, causes it to favor a >particular hand size/strength (arthritic senior citizens vs men >with "manly" hands vs teenagers and, of course, young children); >the childproofing usually makes the actions required to "unlock" >it counterintuitive (on purpose), etc. > >Note the criteria used in these explanations identify the >sorts of things that I perceive as "important" (to *me* -- the >purpose of the question was to identify criteria that others >might consider important). > >I, for example, consider most of Apple's (electronic) offerings >to have crappy interfaces. You *need* your eyes to use them >(even on things like setting the volume on an iPod), they >require more attention than should be necessary (again, the >iPod example comes to mind -- changing volume should be the >sort of thing you can do without thinking about what you >are doing -- instead of requiring you to track your finger >in a particular circular orbit on the face of the device -- note >that things like the Shuttle were much easier to operate >in this regard); they aren't particularly intuitive (contrast >with the doorknob which even a toddler can "operate"), etc. I think that is the first time i saw decent discussion of flaws in the iPod interface. Thanks. It busted me out of several bad ruts all at once. The haptics on my tiny Muvo player are (now obviously) far superior to the iPod interface, i can control it without having to look at it. > >Refering to your "For doing what?" question, could you >consider this sort of iPod interface BETTER in *any* >application than some other haptic interface -- ignoring >trivial cases? (this is a genuine question, not a statement >of my beliefs) > >>> And, of course, "why", in each case.
From: Robert Baer on 2 Mar 2010 05:39
D Yuniskis wrote: > Hi, > > What makes a haptic interface "good"? bad? *Exceptional*? > > What would you nominate as the "best" haptic interface? > > What (electronic) device would you nominate as having the > best haptic interface? > > And, of course, "why", in each case. > > Thanks! > --don Well, for starters, the PicKit2 programming pod is NOT what i would consider a "haptic" interface - despite what our high quality totally bugfree (despite "security" fixes and fixes on fixes ad nauseum) OS states (first install called it that...). |